Difference between revisions of "2018 USAJMO Problems/Problem 5"
(→Solution) |
(→Solution) |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==Solution== | ==Solution== | ||
− | Notice that, if <math>a_i + ik\equiv a_j + jk\text{ (mod } p\text{)}</math> for some <math>k\in {1, 2, ..., p},</math> then <math>a_i + ik\equiv a_j + jk\text{ (mod } p\text{)}</math> is false for all other <math>k'\in {1, 2, ..., p}.</math> | + | Notice that, if <math>a_i + ik\equiv a_j + jk\text{ (mod } p\text{)}</math> for some <math>k\in\{1, 2, ..., p\},</math> then <math>a_i + ik\equiv a_j + jk\text{ (mod } p\text{)}</math> is false for all other <math>k'\in {1, 2, ..., p}.</math> |
+ | |||
+ | <math>\textbf{Lemma: }</math> For fixed <math>i\neq j,</math> where <math>i, j\in\{1, 2, ..., p\},</math> the statement <math>a_i + ik\equiv a_j + jk\text{ (mod } p\text{)}</math> holds for exactly one <math>k\in {1, 2, ..., p}.</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <math>\textbf{Proof: }</math> Notice that the left side minus the right side is congruent to <math>(a_i - a_j) + (i - j)k</math> modulo <math>p.</math> For this difference to equal <math>0,</math> there is a unique solution for <math>k</math> modulo <math>p</math> given by <math>k\equiv (a_j - a_i)(i - j)^{-1}\text{ (mod } p\text{)},</math> where we have used the fact that every nonzero residue modulo <math>p</math> has a unique multiplicative inverse. Therefore, there is exactly one <math>k\in {1, 2, ..., p}</math> that satisfies <math>a_i + ik\equiv a_j + jk\text{ (mod } p\text{)}</math> for any fixed <math>i\neq j. \textbf{ End Lemma}</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | Suppose that you have <math>p</math> graphs <math>G_1, G_2, ..., G_p,</math> and graph <math>G_k</math> consists of the vertices <math>(i, k)</math> for all <math>1\le i\le p.</math> Within any graph <math>G_k,</math> vertices <math>(i_1, k)</math> and <math>(i_2, k)</math> are connected by an edge if and only if <math>a_{i_1} + i_1k\equiv a_{i_2} + i_2k\text{ (mod } p\text{)}.</math> Notice that the number of disconnected components of any graph <math>G_k</math> equals the number of distinct remainders when divided by <math>p</math> given by the numbers <math>a_1 + k, a_2 + 2k, ..., a_p + pk.</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | These <math>p</math> graphs together have exactly one edge for every unordered pair of elements of <math>\{1, 2, ..., p\},</math> so they have a total of exactly <math>\frac{p(p-1)}{2}</math> edges. Therefore, there exists at least one graph <math>G_k</math> that has strictly fewer than <math>\frac{p}{2}</math> edges, meaning that it has more than <math>\frac{p}{2}</math> disconnected components. Therefore, the collection of numbers <math>\{a_i + ik: 1\le i\le p\}</math> for this particular value of <math>k</math> has at least <math>\frac{p}{2}</math> distinct remainders modulo <math>p.</math> This completes the proof. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (sujaykazi) |
Revision as of 01:58, 21 April 2018
Problem 5
Let be a prime, and let be integers. Show that there exists an integer such that the numbers produce at least distinct remainders upon division by .
Solution
Notice that, if for some then is false for all other
For fixed where the statement holds for exactly one
Notice that the left side minus the right side is congruent to modulo For this difference to equal there is a unique solution for modulo given by where we have used the fact that every nonzero residue modulo has a unique multiplicative inverse. Therefore, there is exactly one that satisfies for any fixed
Suppose that you have graphs and graph consists of the vertices for all Within any graph vertices and are connected by an edge if and only if Notice that the number of disconnected components of any graph equals the number of distinct remainders when divided by given by the numbers
These graphs together have exactly one edge for every unordered pair of elements of so they have a total of exactly edges. Therefore, there exists at least one graph that has strictly fewer than edges, meaning that it has more than disconnected components. Therefore, the collection of numbers for this particular value of has at least distinct remainders modulo This completes the proof.
(sujaykazi)